Visualisation in planning

Subjects voluntarily mentioned the technological advantages and disadvantages during the interview process. As hypothesised in the Chapter 1, the research found that cost is one of the main constraints. An associate landscape architect, Interviewee A pointed out:

An obvious disadvantage of computer visualisation is that it is expensive. And small practices have a hard time trying to compete with larger practices. Producing computer visualisation requires certain skills. You have to actually recruit those people into your office or you use sub-consultants, or get freelancers. It is not a skill that a lot of landscape architects have. Younger ones often have; whereas, older ones don’t.

In particular, a GIS officer, Interviewee K in Technician Group claimed:

Cons of computer visualisation are that certain expertise is required, the cost of the software, and sometimes the cost to acquire of the data for modelling (particularly GIS).

As suggested within the interviews practitioners employ computer visualisation in planning mainly due to industry standards of production, ease of communication and to reach a wider audience engagement.

Advantages are that it is an industry standard now to use them. You will struggle if you do not have these packages. Once you’ve got used to them, it is the speed of being able to change drawings quickly and using Photoshop to be able to get across the message to clients and site users. (an associate landscape architect, Interviewee A)

Computer visualisation is much easier to understand than paper drawings. I am not saying for everybody. But almost everyone is going to understand computer visualisations - photomontages, three dimensional animation, etc. (An associate landscape architect, Interviewee E)

Pros are that you can use it to deliver to a much wider audience whether electronically emailing at place in internet…greater accessibility as opposed to the paper map which can be on a display board. It is the potential to be interactive. (a GIS officer, Interviewee K)

Table 6.1 below briefly summarises the advantages and disadvantages recorded by interviewees.

Table 6.1 Summary of advantages and disadvantages of employing computer visualisation in planning

The interviewees were asked to compare computer visualisation to conventional communication media such as paper drawings of plans and sections. Figure 6.4 summarised the results.

Advantages

•Easier communication (graphically in common language)

•Inclusive (more parties can participate in development management)

•Comprehensive (better than map reading - laypeople)

Disadvantages

•Expensive

•Sometimes, can be too many parties involved

The majority opinion revealed that computer visualisation plays a significant role in the modern planning process and usage is increasing gradually. However, it is unlikely to replace traditional media. The majority of the interviewees claimed that computer visualisation is still supplementary in development management in the UK, in particular, some appealed that computer visualisation was a luxury and supplementary in planning.

Figure 6.4 Computerised visualisation and traditional media

The following comments were also made;

At the moment, we need to have both (computer visualisation and traditional media) because if you put a planning application to a local authority you need to have paper as well as models. But there is increasing demand for landscape visualisation such as photomontages. It is becoming increasingly important. However, I don’t think it will ever, be used to the same level nor replace paper drawings entirely. (An associate landscape architect, Interviewee A)

I think computer visualisation is more supplementary. At the moment, it is more like a luxury. However, it tells so much more than anything else. If you have a three dimensional design illustration, as soon as you stand up it tells you more clearly about design than anything else. It is more like a luxury, isn’t it? If you’ve got a big enough shop you can have it when clients require it but most shops are quite small so they cannot afford it. (A GIS officer, Interviewee K)

One of the reasons to keep traditional media such as paper drawings is because of official requirements including local planning authorities and its planning grant. In the

development management process in the UK, planning submission formats are based on paper medium. Computer Visualisation is supplementary. 49% Computer Visualisation will replace traditional media. 38% The both (computer

visualisation and traditional media)

need in planning. 13%

On the other hand, there could be a simple explanation for this phenomenon that paper drawings are cheaper to produce and something easily scribbled on. The most people in Group One illustrated this reason as below;

I think the client has paid for something so you need to have it in paper format, but you’ve still got plenty of choices such as aerials, masterplan, photomontages… (An associate landscape architect, Interviewee A)

I am quite interested to see how computers develop, so that this information becomes more available. But we still need to have paper plans to put a stamp on for showing this is the decision we’ve taken. Without that we will have problem. (An associate landscape architect, Interviewee E)

I would have different image in my mind with the paper drawing. So computer modelling is very useful. Not knowing the site, not knowing what the surrounding area looks like or even the topography and you need to have detailed plans…series of plans to get across all contexts you’ve showed in the model. But probably paper drawings are a lot cheaper. (An associate landscape architect, Interviewee A)

At the moment, I am still inclined…still people need to sit down and see maps. We need to sit down and draw/write on a map. It is becoming more a necessity to have them [computer visualisation]. 70% visualisation, 30% maps. (A GIS officer, Interviewee K)

One of the most obvious comparisons was the cost of production. Most opinions were complementary about computer visualisation but there was also an awareness of its major constraints.

I think visualisation is very very useful. Probably, it is not as useful as it should be. I don’t think it is used enough. At the moment, the technology probably hasn’t moved on far enough where accessible for all, cheap enough for all. (An associate landscape architect, Interviewee E)

However, the advantages of employing computer visualisation in planning are undeniable. For instance;

You have to understand that people do not understand plans, most people perhaps. If you look at a flat plan, which has all these items of it (place papers, pens, and mugs) and it is very difficult to

understand what actually that means. And you often find that a lot of people sign up to our plan. And then say we didn’t agree with that. I think one of the biggest problems is trying to get your ideas across. In the past, we used sketches and visualisations, which some people are very good at, some people aren’t. Some people would exaggerate so it would look fantastic. Some people do very realistic drawings. Whereas, I would stay with the computer visualisation there is the opportunity to provide something fantastic and realistic. And also something visual, because it is three dimensions you’ve

drawn in more people who can understand. Whereas, I think the plan is limiting and a number of people actually cannot understand what you try to do. I think it is a very powerful tool I think it will become more powerful I think it will become an automatic part of any design process. (An associate landscape architect, Interviewee E)

If you bring paper drawings to experts, they understand because they have experience and trained. But, they don’t always appreciate the implications; whereas, on that (computer visualisation), you can see straightaway where implications are of trees, and so on. (A GIS officer, Interviewee K)

The most convincing view on this is that computer visualisation is able to illustrate how proposals would look and envisage how changes will be made; however, the proposals cannot be built with computer visualisation. This is the nature of computer visualisation. A landscape architect, Interviewee C claimed that:

Computer visualisation is more accurate than paper drawing. You are looking at a proposal and whole setting. But obviously you cannot simply just build with it. So it has two parts. It has a role to show to stakeholders and communities what it is going to look like. But it doesn’t tell the builder how to construct it.

6.2.4 Assessments (Environmental Impact Assessment, Landscape and Visual